Do you define "reliabilty" like Consumer Reports?
i think a lot of opinions here are very dated. My '06-'14 ford explorer, no issues except a stuck cd and they replaced the whole nav system no charge. My '15-'18 jeep grand cherokee, no issues. Both of these rated horrible by CR.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 26,029
Likes: 4,321
From: Alberta
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 1,616
From: San Diego, CA
all cars today during warranty 'rarely need a repair'. CR considers a subjectively annoying infotainment system a 'reliability issue' which is ludicrous. And all vehicles have quirks.
i think a lot of opinions here are very dated. My '06-'14 ford explorer, no issues except a stuck cd and they replaced the whole nav system no charge. My '15-'18 jeep grand cherokee, no issues. Both of these rated horrible by CR.
As for your Explorer and your Jeep, as reliable as they may be, that's a sample size of precisely one. My Range Rover too has been reliable, but I don't consider that single sample to invalidate the plethora of evidence to the contrary from myriad surveys that almost invariably place the brand/car in the nether regions. The value of any survey isn't in any singular response but in the aggregate. It's only from aggregate data that you can spot trends and predict with confidence. CR is hardly alone in noting that, generally speaking, LR/RR and FCA products aren't going to be as reliable as a Lexus. That doesn't make them bad vehicles. Jeep owners are as passionate about their cars as Range Rover owners and owners will take the rough with the smooth.
Edited to add link to a post in another thread by spwolf with results from What Car in the UK where the results broadly mirror the CR findings - Lexus near the top, both my Range and your Jeep in the proverbial crapper, and some other surprising high and lows.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...l#post10346388
Last edited by swajames; Oct 29, 2018 at 09:56 PM.
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 794
Likes: 3
From: CA
These rating are stupid, they give cars bad ratings based on electronics and infotainment failures. The Infiniti Q50/60 Got really bad ratings based on their Infotainment sucking. So they called the car unreliable even if it rarely broke down. Like I've said before, unreliable to me is if the car will leave me stranded not if my Back Up Camera lines are not showing up. I still think you're more likely to be stuck on the side of the road in an Audi than any Japanese car. I don't care what that report say's.
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 1,616
From: San Diego, CA
These rating are stupid, they give cars bad ratings based on electronics and infotainment failures. The Infiniti Q50/60 Got really bad ratings based on their Infotainment sucking. So they called the car unreliable even if it rarely broke down. Like I've said before, unreliable to me is if the car will leave me stranded not if my Back Up Camera lines are not showing up. I still think you're more likely to be stuck on the side of the road in an Audi than any Japanese car. I don't care what that report say's.
regardless of the accuracy of the cr reliability results and definition (what this thread is about), an import factor to me is the RANGE of information across the results, which i don't believe CR shares.
so if lexus rates a "1" in reliability (tops) but a fiat or some other bottom feeder rates a "2" is it twice as bad, or if 1 in a hundred *****ed about lexus but 2 in a hundred *****ed about a fiat, then the lexus is 99% reliable, and the fiat is 98% reliable - hardly a crisis for the fiat. see how statistics can be 'interpreted' and skewed?
so if lexus rates a "1" in reliability (tops) but a fiat or some other bottom feeder rates a "2" is it twice as bad, or if 1 in a hundred *****ed about lexus but 2 in a hundred *****ed about a fiat, then the lexus is 99% reliable, and the fiat is 98% reliable - hardly a crisis for the fiat. see how statistics can be 'interpreted' and skewed?
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 1,616
From: San Diego, CA
regardless of the accuracy of the cr reliability results and definition (what this thread is about), an import factor to me is the RANGE of information across the results, which i don't believe CR shares.
so if lexus rates a "1" in reliability (tops) but a fiat or some other bottom feeder rates a "2" is it twice as bad, or if 1 in a hundred *****ed about lexus but 2 in a hundred *****ed about a fiat, then the lexus is 99% reliable, and the fiat is 98% reliable - hardly a crisis for the fiat. see how statistics can be 'interpreted' and skewed?
so if lexus rates a "1" in reliability (tops) but a fiat or some other bottom feeder rates a "2" is it twice as bad, or if 1 in a hundred *****ed about lexus but 2 in a hundred *****ed about a fiat, then the lexus is 99% reliable, and the fiat is 98% reliable - hardly a crisis for the fiat. see how statistics can be 'interpreted' and skewed?
They do say, and it's posted in this very thread, that the least reliable car per their results, the Tesla Model X, is 12 times more likely to have an issue than the most reliable car per their results, an Audi Q3. Note that CR is 100% transparent in noting that despite the poor reliability history of the Model X, the car scores very highly on ownership satisfaction/"would you buy this car again". Note too that the 2019 Q3 is not recommended, because CR has not had the opportunity to test or gather data on the redesigned car.
Beyond that, no other vendor such as JD Power releases the details, and the manufacturers themselves who of course have the most granular data of all zealously guard and don't release such details.
You've already shown, as have I, a willingness to buy cars that score better in terms of ownership satisfaction than reliability. Some want a car they will love, some want a car than won't let them down, and some want a car that's a bit of both. CR gives you both sides of the coin, but you have to know that the data you will see published by CR for free and the data you have access to a subscriber aren't the same.
CR isn't publishing in a scientific journal where all must be laid bare and subject to peer review both pre and post publication. They never claimed to be. CR, like JD Power and others, is a business. Vehicle owners can choose to respond to the survey requests or not, and vehicle buyers can choose to act on their recommendations or not.
Last edited by swajames; Oct 30, 2018 at 11:24 AM.
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 794
Likes: 3
From: CA
What hurt the Q50 most, and what was the lowest scoring category, wasn’t infotainment but the car’s climate control systems. Also, CR did not call the Q50 unreliable. It scored reasonably well in most mechanical categories. They did call out slow response times on the infotainment, plus issues with squeaks/wind noise/rattles etc, but infotainment wasn’t the reason why the car isn’t recommended. It wasn’t recommended because only 56% of owners who responded said they were satisfied with the car.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,300
Likes: 4
From: RightHere
What's interesting is the copy/paste criticisms taken straight off the internet about methodolgy, infotainment reliability etc, etc. How is CR held to a higher standard vs online reviews, car review shills? Do they disclose who gave them the vehicle or how long they had it?
Some posters need some sort of disclosure and peer reviews as if this is a public taxpayer funded organization. A college or university dean doing a disseration. CR and its various arms are incorporated as businesses merely for getting things done, and not for profiteering.
If people don't like CR than use the alternative methods of determining what you want to buy. These anecdotal, unscientific tales about how a vehicle is great because you own it, and CR must be wrong because they said something negative about it, not even close to being statistically accurate. CR is a public interest consumer organzation. It has 3.8 million subcriber base. This is what pi***s off the usual crowd of critics.
Some posters need some sort of disclosure and peer reviews as if this is a public taxpayer funded organization. A college or university dean doing a disseration. CR and its various arms are incorporated as businesses merely for getting things done, and not for profiteering.
If people don't like CR than use the alternative methods of determining what you want to buy. These anecdotal, unscientific tales about how a vehicle is great because you own it, and CR must be wrong because they said something negative about it, not even close to being statistically accurate. CR is a public interest consumer organzation. It has 3.8 million subcriber base. This is what pi***s off the usual crowd of critics.
In the July 1978 issue, Consumer Reports rated the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon automobile "not acceptable", the first car it had judged such since the AMC Ambassador in 1968. In its testing they found the possibility of these models developing an oscillatory yaw as a result of a sudden violent input to the steering; the manufacturer claimed that "Some do, some don't" show this behavior, but it has no "validity in the real world of driving".[29]
Nevertheless, the next year, these models included a lighter weight steering wheel rim and a steering damper; Consumer Reports reported that the previous instability was no longer present.In a 2003 issue of CR, the magazine tested the Nissan Murano crossover utility vehicle. Consumer Reports did not recommend the vehicle because of a problem with its power steering, even though the vehicle had above-average reliability. The specific problem was that the steering would stiffen substantially on hard turning. Consumer Reports recommended the 2005 model, which addressed this problem.[[i]citation needed]BMW changed the software for the stability control in its X5 SUV after replicating a potential rollover problem discovered during a Consumer Reports test.[30]
In 2010, CR rated the 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUV unsafe after the vehicle failed one of the magazine's emergency safety tests. Toyota temporarily suspended sales of the vehicle, and after conducting its own test acknowledged the problem. A recall for the vehicle was issued, and the vehicle passed a Consumer Reports re-test.[31]In 2016, CR found wildly inconsistent battery life in its testing of Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro.
This led to the discovery of a bug in the Safari web browser, which was promptly fixed by Apple, via a software update.[32]In May 2018, CR said it could not recommend the Tesla Model 3 due to concerns about the car’s long stopping distance. Within days, Tesla issued a remote software update.[33] CR retested the car’s brakes, then gave the Model 3 a “recommended”.
Nevertheless, the next year, these models included a lighter weight steering wheel rim and a steering damper; Consumer Reports reported that the previous instability was no longer present.In a 2003 issue of CR, the magazine tested the Nissan Murano crossover utility vehicle. Consumer Reports did not recommend the vehicle because of a problem with its power steering, even though the vehicle had above-average reliability. The specific problem was that the steering would stiffen substantially on hard turning. Consumer Reports recommended the 2005 model, which addressed this problem.[[i]citation needed]BMW changed the software for the stability control in its X5 SUV after replicating a potential rollover problem discovered during a Consumer Reports test.[30]
In 2010, CR rated the 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUV unsafe after the vehicle failed one of the magazine's emergency safety tests. Toyota temporarily suspended sales of the vehicle, and after conducting its own test acknowledged the problem. A recall for the vehicle was issued, and the vehicle passed a Consumer Reports re-test.[31]In 2016, CR found wildly inconsistent battery life in its testing of Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro.
This led to the discovery of a bug in the Safari web browser, which was promptly fixed by Apple, via a software update.[32]In May 2018, CR said it could not recommend the Tesla Model 3 due to concerns about the car’s long stopping distance. Within days, Tesla issued a remote software update.[33] CR retested the car’s brakes, then gave the Model 3 a “recommended”.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 20,238
Likes: 274
all cars today during warranty 'rarely need a repair'. CR considers a subjectively annoying infotainment system a 'reliability issue' which is ludicrous. And all vehicles have quirks.
i think a lot of opinions here are very dated. My '06-'14 ford explorer, no issues except a stuck cd and they replaced the whole nav system no charge. My '15-'18 jeep grand cherokee, no issues. Both of these rated horrible by CR.
That is an interesting take on situation.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,577
Likes: 391
From: PA
They are like weathercasters or financial analysts. They don't use science, nor are there any consequences if they are wrong. So answer? No.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
Bought their #1 recommended bagless vacuum cleaner, broke. #1 lead acid car battery, failed in < 2 yrs. I get that today we discount validity and reliability, but there has to be something behind these concepts.
When they said there's nothing sporty about the new (2015) GTI, that was when we all knew something was wrong with them. imho CR is for a generation past. Before Al Gore invented the internet, our grandparents got snookered issue by issue. No longer.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
Bought their #1 recommended bagless vacuum cleaner, broke. #1 lead acid car battery, failed in < 2 yrs. I get that today we discount validity and reliability, but there has to be something behind these concepts.
When they said there's nothing sporty about the new (2015) GTI, that was when we all knew something was wrong with them. imho CR is for a generation past. Before Al Gore invented the internet, our grandparents got snookered issue by issue. No longer.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,480
Likes: 254
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
They are like weathercasters or financial analysts. They don't use science, nor are there any consequences if they are wrong. So answer? No.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,560
Likes: 279
From: Illinois
They are like weathercasters or financial analysts. They don't use science, nor are there any consequences if they are wrong. So answer? No.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
Bought their #1 recommended bagless vacuum cleaner, broke. #1 lead acid car battery, failed in < 2 yrs. I get that today we discount validity and reliability, but there has to be something behind these concepts.
When they said there's nothing sporty about the new (2015) GTI, that was when we all knew something was wrong with them. imho CR is for a generation past. Before Al Gore invented the internet, our grandparents got snookered issue by issue. No longer.
My BMW was on the "avoid" and "most unreliable" lists. So getting a factory extended warranty was a no-brainer. Nothing broke in 12 years except one item--ABS/DSC. When they saw they had made a mistake, they simply put it on the recommended list 3 years later. You and I can't cya like that, there's something called SOX.
Bought their #1 recommended bagless vacuum cleaner, broke. #1 lead acid car battery, failed in < 2 yrs. I get that today we discount validity and reliability, but there has to be something behind these concepts.
When they said there's nothing sporty about the new (2015) GTI, that was when we all knew something was wrong with them. imho CR is for a generation past. Before Al Gore invented the internet, our grandparents got snookered issue by issue. No longer.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,577
Likes: 391
From: PA
That was not necessarily a mistake on CL's part. Reliability patterns can change, sometimes on the very same vehicle. It can be troublesome one year, and not the next.....and vice-versa. CL can only go by the latest data they have, which can be up to a year or two old.....or, older than that, if not enough owners fill out the yearly questionnaires.